Lal Kitab — Sleeping houses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that planets are considered 'dormant' and remedies can activate them, providing useful conceptual context. No contradictions with annotations, and no additional behavioral details (e.g., auth, rate limits) are needed given annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences plus an example and group tag. The first sentence defines the core concept, and the second adds significance. The example is helpful but could be more informative. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a concept-specific tool, the description adequately explains the concept but lacks details on required parameters or output format. Given the tool's niche focus and standard birth chart parameters, the description is minimally sufficient but could be more complete for agents unfamiliar with Lal Kitab.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any of the 11 input parameters. It provides an example request body with typical parameters (date, time, etc.) but does not clarify their meaning or usage beyond what the schema already shows. The agent must infer standard astrological parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool's purpose: identifying 'sleeping houses' where a planet is in its own sign (pakka ghar) without companions/aspects, and explains the Lal Kitab significance (dormant planets) and remedy context. This is specific and distinguishes it from other Lal Kitab tools like vedic_lal_kitab_blind_house.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Lal Kitab' grouping but does not advise when to choose this over other Lal Kitab tools (e.g., vedic_lal_kitab_planet_house_effect). Usage context is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.